SIS Forum

The SIS is the oldest and most up to date society for catastrophist research, including ancient history, astronomy, mythology, science and the Electric Universe. It produces two publications, holds events, and offers a variety of related books. Website...

The Forum is provided for both SIS members and non-members to discuss topics relevant to the Society's work. It also provides the opportunity for non-members to ask questions about the Society’s work and/or published material. All posts are moderated before inclusion. No attachments are permitted.

Geoffrey Gammon, who used to write a lot for SIS (he'd be in his 80s now), was the man who knew all about Claude Schaeffer (as far as SIS was concerned), and presumably he could read French (he was a senior civil servant). We have lost contact with him over the years. I don't know if he felt sidelined by the New Chronology or was not too enthusiastic about it and how it had developed. He was after all a leading light in the Glasgow chronology. In my last communication with him he informed me had decided to take up medieval studies instead. That must have been a good 20 years ago - or more. It's funny but SIS has recently become engrossed with some features of medieval history, such as the 775ad flare and the late Roman/ early A/Saxon period. Perhaps we should try and contact him again.Personally, all I know about Schaeffer is what Geoffrey, and others, have written. The Amos Nur book is not a lot of use as he doesn't go into Schaeffer's work in anything but a broad outline (very broad and fairly limited). Trevor's book Perilous Planet Earth might be more useful as he has explored all sorts of features of catastrophism, from Velikovsky and outwards. Schaeffer is discussed. As I understand it Schaeffer found evidence in his various archaeological digs of swarms of earthquakes at the end of the EB, the MB, and the LB ages. Some of these events were prolonged - or double dips. This is a feature of the end of EB, which is spaced over around 200 years. It encompasses end of Dynastic Sumeria event and end of Akkad event which in Egyptian terms pans out end of dynasty 5 and end of dynasty 6. In Palestine this period was originally dubbed the EB-MB Intermediate Period as it involved sparse settlement and the adoption of animal based farming as opposed to cultivation. Earthquakes, or the threat of earthquakes, is what is implied in the Schaeffer theory. The period is now subdivided to include the EBIV. In Syria there was no Intermediate Period but EBIV ran contemporary with Akkad (and likewise ended in a destruction level). They were subsequently followed by MBI (contemp dyn 11) and MBIIA (contemp dyn 12). What is interesting is how the EB-MB Intermediate was interpreted by archaeologists of the time. It was said that a new people, the Amorites had invaded Palestine and Syria, and were responsible for the EB site destructions. Much more recently it has been realised the Amorites spoke the same language as the EB people (from Ebla excavations) and they are in effect displaced people. In other words, if earthquakes had shattered EB Palestine and then the pastoral Amorites represent the survivors, too frightened to go back to their settlements as a result of the threat of further earth shocks. When they do return to living in towns and cities a new form of mud brick building work was imposed, the massive sloped glacis surroundings that appear to be designed to thwart earthquake damage (and lt's remember they were building in mud brick). Interestingly, the Negev at the time of EB-MB was quite heavily populated, right on the borders of Egypt. Many of the semitic servants of the subsequent MK probably entered the Nile delta region in about this time which is what I think New Chronology would suppose, but prior to that there were a few revisionists who saw all these people in the Negev as evidence of the 40 years wandering in the wilderness (but unfortunately they also wanted to identify the end of EB site destructions with the conquest of Joshua - but not the first batch, the second batch (end of EBIV). That left wide open the first batch of site destructions (usually ignored as EBIII sites appear on the list of Joshua) and likewise ignored the fact that the Negev had settlements (of a kind) which was contrary to the spirit of the 40 years in the wilderness (bedouin like existence) enroute to Transjordan. What this and all subsequent revised positions for Exodus ignore is the actuality of earthquakes. That basically, is how the EB Exodus event pans out in various revised schemes. The MB Exodus was derived from similar interpretations - the site destructions at end of MBIIB-C, and they have been used by Velikovsky and Rohl, among others, to delineate Joshua's conquest narrative. Once you begin to think in terms of earthquakes a whole different scenario opens up. Any link with Joshua is superficial (in addition we may note orthodox chronology favoured identifying the campaigns of Thutmose III in Palestine with the site destructions, especially at Megiddo. Now, this city lies right on an earthquake fault line and Amos Nur describes in detail many such earthquakes that have occurred there in the historical period and the same must be true of the Bronze ages. Lastly, the LB site destructions are also attributed by Schaeffer and Nur to earthquake activity (and the in the Samson story we have a reflection of this when he pushes the pillars apart and brings the temple crashing down) but orhtodox chronology, many years ago, chose to identify the site destructions at this time to the conquest narrative of Joshua, mainly as most archaeologists in the Holy Land at that time were said to have a bible in one hand and a spade in the other. Although modern orthodox chronologists may argue otherwise (we don't carry bibles with us when we excavate) the reality is that is why the Exodus is placed at end of LB and why the Judges period is compressed to fit the scheme. Velikovsky could see this was nonsense - and so can we. Going back to the beginning. It is possible |Geoffrey Gammon became disenfranchised with a revision because James and Rohl had decided to proceed by taking no notice of catastrophism. What would interest me in Schaeffer's work is not so much the major earthquake events, which marry quite nicely with tree ring data, but the lesser events that sudivide the different periods - such as end of EB1, EBII, MBIIA, LBII and LBIIIA etc. Are they also to be attributed to earthquakes and what was it that was spawning all these earthquakes - and were earthquakes happening elsewhere in the world as Stonehenge was being rearranged at all these points of interest. Taking the argument a stage further, revisionists do not just ignore earthquakes (as well as the archaeologists) but they also tend to ignore or dismiss C14 dates, tree rings, and ice cores (as well as any other proxy data system you might like to bring to the table). The dating systems all have one thing in common - they support the orthodox layout of chronology rather than a big revision. As we are convinced some kind of revision is necessary this implies proxy data must be at fault - but we should be finding out where the dating systems are wrong rather than ignoring them. Tree rings don't just support the conventional system, the succession from EB to MB to LB, but they are also in agreement with Claude Schaeffer. Originally, in early SIS articles on chronology, you will find Schaeffer is quoted on the odd occasion. Later, he is completely ignored - and do too is Euan MacKie and others. It would be useful if revisionists re-read what Gammon has said in his articles on the Bronze Ages and the site destructions - and then take a deep breath.

Looking through the Catastrophism CD there is only 'Bronze Age Destructions in the Near East' SIS IV:4 which is a bit disappointing. He wrote a few things for Catastrophism and Ancient History and one article for Kronos but mainly it was in Review and Workshop. Geoffrey was the convenor of the Study Group meetings for quite a long time, when it was at Dulwich and later, when it migrated to Willesden after Clarice died. This is when Claude Schaeffer's book was discussed - and Dayton's 'Minerals Metals Glazing and Man' which he thought a lot of, but most meetings were not dominated by anyone in particular but a sort of share in information sort of thing. He always had a copy of ANET with him. I think Peter James wrote about Schaeffer but he didn't take part in study group meetings as far as I can recall. He ignores catastrophism in his book and on his web site but he was very keen on it at one time. You will find that Schaeffer is somebody in the background, in communication with Velikovsky and therefore on the general radar of Velikovskians at that time but rarely taken up which I suppose is due to the fact his book is in French. Any translation would be welcome as it would be just as relevant today as it was when he wrote it - possibly more so as archaeology is not treated in cavalier fashion as it once was, and it would actually make people sit up. Too many archaeologists in the past were members of the men in suits brigade with lots of things to say and not a lot into hands on involvement - and if they did direct operations it was I know best and do as I say. Basically, archaeologists at the time had no wit. Earthquakes! Don't be silly, earthquakes don't happen in blighty so they didn't happen in the Levant, across Anatolia, or in the Aegean. It was invading armies I tell you, only bombs and tanks can take down walls and cause mud brick houses to warp and catch fire. Just because they had no bombs as such in those days means nothing - they had seige engines and big stones they chucked on big catapults. Of course it was humans that wrecked the damn places. Earthquakes! Preposterous. You can almost here them sputtering now.

Not MB per se but MBIIA - a quite distinct period from MBIIB-C. Some people have suggested locating Exodus at end of MBIIA rather than MBIIB-C per Glasgow Chronology, Rohl etc. MBIIA has the celebrated link with Hammurabi of Dynasty One Babylon via a king of Mari. MBIIA was also contemporary the Curse Texts (Egypt) and the Benjaminites (Mari) and various other tribes in Palestine and Syria.

While at the British Library I looked in their catalogue for a translation of Schaeffer's book and when unsuccessful asked a librarian if he could find one in any of the other catalogues available to him. When he could not find it he told me that it was most unlikely that one has been published. The system number of the book in French is 003267858 and its British Library shelf mark is 7706.f. 50.

Geoffrey Gammon begins his paper, Bronze Age Destructions in the Near East, published in SIS Review vol. 4:4, with “The extensive work of the eminent French archaeologist Claude Schaeffer, correlating the chronology and stratigraphy of Bronze Age sites in the Near East, led him to conclude that many of the phases of Bronze Age civilisation were ended by catastrophes not caused by man”. Gammon’s table on page 104 showing the stratigraphy of Ugarit on the north Syrian coast showed several major destruction layers. He dated the last, after which the devastated Ugarit site was abandoned, to the end of the Late Bronze Age, because it held Mycenaean and Egyptian 19th Dynasty material. The destruction layer below it apparently contained material contemporary with the Egyptian Amarna period while the next one down held material contemporary with earlier in the Egyptian 18th Dynasty.

Gammon said that Schaffer was less concerned by what had caused the shattering events than with establishing that they had occurred. However, he was apparently satisfied that earthquakes had caused destruction throughout Anatolia, Syria and Palestine on a number of occasions. This investigation conclusion, that is still considered impossible by earthquake experts, effectively ended Schaeffer’s career.The Book of Isaiah tells of a Schaeffer magnitude catastrophe and of the condition of Judah and its neighbours following it. Just as hardly anyone thought that Schaeffer’s investigation conclusion was credible, hardly any reader of the Book of Isaiah thinks that it is credible that the condition of Judah and its neighbours was as described by Isaiah; the consensus view is that the reported destruction has to be prophetical not true. However, what Isaiah described was, I believe, a genuine disaster in the true meaning of the word namely “destruction by a star”.

It is not surprising that a Schaeffer style catastrophe cannot be explained by modern earth scientists who cannot conceive of a world encompassing disaster. However, we know that Velikovsky, in Worlds in Collision, wrote about a world encompassing catastrophe at the time of the Exodus that, according to Jewish tradition, brought the 6th World Age to an end. I believe that the Exodus catastrophe saw the demise of Early Bronze Age III at which time, according to Schaeffer, there was destruction seen throughout Western Asia.

In his sections about world ages and sun ages in chapter 2 of Worlds in Collision, Velikovsky said that the Chinese maintain that 10 world ages had perished from the beginning of the world until Confucius and, additionally, that throughout the world there was a tradition that there was a new sun in the sky at the beginning of every new age. In my World Ages paper, published in SIS Workshop 2011:1, I wrote about the first 6 world ages that I believe can be equated with the Biblical 6 days of creation. After surviving the Exodus catastrophe Moses promised his people that the 7th day of creation was a day of rest, in other words there would be no further such world encompassing catastrophes, but he was wrong. Despite Lucifer/Venus having been cast down and forced into an orbit between the Earth and the Sun, the world, according to the Chinese, saw a 4 further world ages perish before the time of Confucius with each successor age having a new sun; Confucius is generally thought to have been born during the 7th century BC.

As we have quite a number of ancient reports about the Sun setting where it now rises and rising where it now sets and have records of climate change in Europe that implies reversals in the flow of the Gulf Stream, I am convinced that the world has experienced 4 inversions since the Exodus catastrophe that Velikovsky dated to around 1,450 BC. Peter Warlow, in his book The Reversing Earth, has explained how the world could have been inverted if subjected to sufficient external force and when inverted would experience a reversal in ocean currents while Wal Thornhill has explained how electromagnetic forces would be generated between 2 charged planets if they came close to one another. Consequently, an inversion cannot be considered inconceivable to science.

In his chapter entitled Klimasturz in Earth in Upheaval, Velikovsky reported that a German archaeologist called Gustaf Kossinna dated a severe Scandinavian climatic plunge “to about the year 700 BC and stressed that it took place with catastrophic suddenness”. Velikovsky thought that the climate change could be attributed to the Mars axis shift that he dated to the funeral of Ahaz of Judah and that its reversal could be attributed to the axis shift during the during the reign of Hezekiah when the Bible reports that the clock come back by the amount it went forward earlier. However, while an axis shift such as is reported to have occurred at the time of the funeral of king Ahaz must have caused climate change in Europe I cannot believe that it could have caused the reversal in prevailing climate that is known to have occurred at the start of the Sub-boreal climate phase. I believe that a Warlow inversion must have been responsible for the climate change and that this inversion must be dated to around 700 BC with its reversal dated a Venus cycle of around 52 years later.

I believe that the first 35 chapters of the Book of Isaiah tell of the damage suffered during the earlier of these 2 inversions and of the condition of the Middle East after it. The first verse of chapter 24 of the Book of Isaiah that says “the Lord maketh the earth empty and maketh it a waste and turneth it upside-down” supports my suggestion that the earth experienced an inversion late in the life of Isaiah that caused devastation throughout the Near East and even worse damage elsewhere; Emmet Sweeney has reported that three quarters of the population of Ireland died at this time.

At the beginning of the Book of Isaiah verse 7 of chapter 1 says “your country is desolate your cities are burned by fire” and verse 25 of chapter 5 says “therefore is the anger of the Lord kindled against his people and he has stretched forth his hand against them and has smitten them; and the hills did tremble”. Clearly Judah suffered extreme damage when “visited by the Lord of Hosts with thunder, and with earthquakes, and great noise, with storm and tempest, and the flame of devouring fire” (Isaiah 29:6) and this is really what the book is about. I believe that verse 7 of chapter 1 tells of the condition of Judah after the catastrophe that I date to the 22nd year of Manasseh because of the Jewish tradition that he was carried back Jerusalem by a great wind after being held as a hostage by the Assyrians; at this time Assyria was the dominant power ruling Babylon as well as Syria and Palestine through client kings. A great wind would be experienced during an inversion as well as earthquakes and serious flooding.

The Bible does not tell us much about the reign of Manasseh apart from Kings 2 saying he was made king as a 12 year old and ruled for 55 years, but did evil in the sight of the Lord and provoked him to great anger. Apparently, according to Kings 2, 21:13, the Lord spoke by his servants the prophets warning Manasseh of the wrath of the Lord saying "I will wipe Jerusalem as a man wipeth a dish, wiping it and turning it upside-down". The mention of prophets saying that Manasseh provoked the Lord’s anger suggests to me that Isaiah actually told Manasseh that he was responsible for the catastrophe which probably explains, why according to Jewish tradition, Manasseh executed Isaiah.

In addition to the report about the world being turned upside down there are other clear inversion features mentioned in the Book of Isaiah. A mighty wind would be experienced during an inversion and sea levels in the south of the Mediterranean would have fallen as water was drawn to the north (see 11:15). This would have drained the 7 branches of the Nile leaving only a modest rate of flow. The inversion would have seen Babylon flooded by the waters of the Persian Gulf that were drawn to the north and it would have taken a long time for the waters to drain away (14:23). Most of the people living in Lower Mesopotamia must have died leaving the land virtually uninhabited. The Assyrian king, Esarhaddon, said, when writing about Babylon in his annals, that "before my time there befell evil days in Sumer and Akkad; anger sized the Lord of Gods; Marduk poured floods into the city and made it a ruin heap.” Although not reported by Isaiah the islands and the northern coast of the Mediterranean suffered devastating flooding as well as Babylon; the Greeks called this the Flood of Deukalion after the king of Crete at the time of the inversion and of the Trojan war.

According to Dr John Bimson the joint era of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III was LB I. It follows that the era of the sole reign of Thutmose III was LB IIA. Thus dates can be applied thus:LB I till 1458 BCLB IIA 1458 till after 1425 BC. LB IIA continues till into the era of Amenhotep III. It begins to change to LB IIB as the times of el Amarna occur. Vronwy Hankey claims that the time of Pharaohs Tutankhamun and Ay was LB IIB. Revisionist claims by Barry Curnock for Ugarit and the sack of Boghazkoi give 553 and 547 BC after various arguments sustaining the work up to those dates. My own revisionist work relies on the conventional dates for these two events circa 1200 BC. As my revisionist theory sees a movement to erase Dark Ages by the extent of 631 years I’m heartened by the choices made by Velikovsky to date Haremhab circa 702 BC till 690 BC and to date Ramesses I to 664 BC. Acceptance of some of the detailed chronology favoured by Barry also heartens me because his two dates, 553 and 547 BC can have the 631 movement applied. This would date the destruction of Ugarit at 1184 BC and the sack of Boghazkoi at 1178 BC. These date appear to satisfy the less than specific dates that orthodoxy gives for either event.During the excavation of Jericho it was found that scarabs of Hatshepsut, Thutmose III and Amenhotep III were found. “The scarabs found by Garstang in three tombs at Jericho - scarabs of Hatshepsut, Thutmose III and Amenhotep III - would therefore represent re-use of old tombs. This is indicated by the total absence of scarabs and other datable remains from the rest of the Hyksos period after Sheshi (a minimum of four rulers, including Khyan and Apophis) and from the four kings of the early part of the 18th Dynasty”. (SIS Editorial Comment.)Jericho was destroyed by Joshua circa 1400 BC, Thiele. The earliest date for Amenhotep III given by Grimal is 1390 BC so the deposition of a scarab of his must occur close to the destruction date. This surmise ties in with the dates Grimal uses for Hatshepsut and Thutmose III. Their dates precede the destruction date, in conventional terms. Jericho was rebuilt under Ahab after 875 BC (Thiele) having endured approximately 525 years of desertion. Alan Montgomery says the rebuild was in LB IIA.The revisionist philosophy being held here needs a movement of 631 years for past events into much more later times; see Haremhab and the Ramesses I movement by Velikovsky. This argument then demands that the scarabs of these three worthies be placed into these re-used tombs after the rebuild. The demand of that argument is that Hatshepsut and Thutmose III were after 875 BC. Moving them by the 631 year argument would require us placing them from 849 – 794 BC and placing Amenhotep III after 760 BC. All these “moved dates” are now subsequent to the rebuild phase.I suggest that reliance should be placed on the idea that the scarabs of these three pharaohs were placed in re-used graves after the rebuild. That such a radical thought destroys some of Velikovsky’s pillars is a corollary of the argument.